The objective of these lessons is to extend the challenge to Christians to be sober. The objective is NOT to challenge Christians to be fearful. What is the difference? Soberness is an attitude that constantly moves in the direction of fuller realization and understanding of the seriousness of a consideration. Soberness generates hope. It does not attack or exclude hope. Fear is an emotion that constantly moves in the direction of inescapable danger. Fear often attacks hope. It frequently destroys hope. Soberness says, "This must be taken seriously!" Fear says, "This will destroy me!" Frequently, soberness motivates us to focus and try. Fear commonly motivates us to lose focus and give up. Soberness declares we have a choice. Fear declares we are a helpless victim.
While God wants followers to hold Him in awe and reverence, God does not want those who love Him to be terrified of Him. In His total holiness, He deserves profound respect. Yet, He does not want His children to be terrified of Him. Just as any loving father who seeks the best for his children [even when they do not understand!], God wants His children to hold Him in loving respect, not in the terror of danger. In Christians, He seeks love's commitment of loyalty, not fear's mindless, thoughtless control.
A key understanding Christians need is this: the fact that God loves us and in His love justifies us does not mean God's love wants us to live and act irresponsibly. As any loving, responsible father, God knows what is in our best interest. As any loving, responsible father, God sees and knows dangers we children do not see and do not understand. As any loving, responsible father, God seeks what is best for us even when we profoundly disagree with Him on what is best. As any loving, responsible father, God knows He cannot void the consequences of the children's foolish, thoughtless choices. As any loving, responsible father, God knows the certain way to eliminate consequences for His children is to encourage His children to make healthy, serious decisions [in contrast to frivolous, thoughtless decisions].
We as a society do not like responsibility. We as a society do not like accountability. How rarely do you hear someone in any arena of society voluntarily step forward early in any form of catastrophe and say, "X was my fault! That was my responsibility! I am accountable for this failure! I am to blame!" Such happens so rarely that our society is quite skeptical if such acknowledgments occur.
In our society, it is considered foolish to acknowledge responsibility and accountability. To do so is to open one's self to law suits and perhaps criminal charges! Certainly, there are many relevant factors in any disaster. Consider how our society frequently approaches catastrophic happenings. "Who will 'take the fall' for this?" "Who will we make the 'scapegoat'?" Where will we place the blame--on a person or a circumstance?" "How will we manage damage control?"
This is quite evident in the most personal of matters. For example, when a marriage fails [which occurs in about half the marriages], frequently she says, "It is his fault! If he would change Y, we would have no serious problems. Our marriage has failed because he refuses to accept his responsibility!" He frequently says, "It is her fault! If she would change Z, we would have no serious problems. Our marriage has failed because she refuses to accept her responsibility!" In matters of personal relationships, we are quite adept at giving 100% blame to someone else.
Thus, rather than admitting "my" part in the matter, we learn to evade any sense of blame. What now you are asked to consider is not intended as insensitivity toward any victim. It fully acknowledges that stereotyping is an extremely cruel thing to do to anyone. Every situation is unique and should be approached as unique--few things "are true of everyone" in a given situation.
When a person dies from cancer produced by smoking, are tobacco companies 100% responsible? Was individual choice in no way responsible? Was the person powerless to make a choice?
Are all rapes a matter of random violence? Should no rape victim ever ask, "Did I by knowledgeable choice go to the wrong place at the wrong time? Did my actions or dress significantly contribute to this violent incident?"
If drinking destroys my liver, is 100% of the blame the brewery's fault? What role did individual choice serve in producing a horrific consequence? Do individual "rights" mean it is the responsibility of a government agency to protect me from every situation in life?
Certainly, these are complex questions. Never is justice done in any situation by oversimplifying the matter. Certainly, no one or no group has 'a license' to ignore human well being by producing a dangerous product designed to exploit human addiction. Certainly, no one or no group has the right to reduce a woman to a 'thing to be used' and violently disregard her person. Certainly, each person should be respected as an individual. The objective of these questions is not to suggest otherwise.
The matter for you to consider is this: choices produce consequences. When bad consequences result from a choice made, we are not served well by seeking to absolve ourselves through trying to place 100% of the blame on other people or the circumstances. If that is the course we choose to take, then (1) we learn little or nothing from experiencing the consequence; (2) our spouses, children, and extended family learn little or nothing positive from our experience; (3) the part of society influenced by our lives learns little or nothing positive from our experience. Unfortunately, we do not regard bad consequences as a teaching vehicle. Typically, rather than learning from a bad consequence, people emotionally react against the incident. We are more likely to feel 'wronged' than we are to feel wiser.
Questions for Thought and Discussion:
vIn our society, do people typically like to accept responsibility? Explain your answer.
Link to Teacher's Guide
Lesson 1